Purcell v. Friday Staffing, 235 N.C. App. 342

In 1999 Purcell suffered a work-related lumbar injury (L5-S1 disc protrusion, L4-5 degeneration), underwent microdiscectomy, and received a 7% permanent partial disability and lifting restrictions (≤20 lbs).
Purcell signed a 2002 workers’ compensation compromise settlement acknowledging possible permanent/progressive back problems.
In 2010 Purcell applied to Friday Staffing, affirming on application and in-person interview that she had no prior workers’ compensation claims, injuries, surgeries, or treatment for back pain and that she could lift over 50 lbs.
Friday Staffing placed Purcell at Continental Teves on assembly lines requiring frequent lifting and constant handling of trailer arms weighing approximately 20–25 lbs; Purcell worked primarily on the more strenuous CO2 line.
On July 18, 2011 Purcell suffered a new large L5-S1 disc extrusion at work and filed a claim; employer denied liability under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12.1 for willful misrepresentation of physical condition.
The Industrial Commission denied benefits, finding Purcell knowingly misrepresented her condition, Friday Staffing relied on those misrepresentations in hiring, and the prior undisclosed condition increased the risk of the 2011 injury; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 97-12.1’s "causal connection" requires proof that the prior misrepresented condition increased risk of the later injury	Purcell: defendants must prove the prior condition actually caused or contributed to the herniated disc (more than increased risk)	Defendants: causal connection satisfied if the undisclosed condition increased the risk of the subsequent injury	Court: "causal connection" means the undisclosed/misrepresented condition must have increased the risk of the later injury; statute adopts Larson-style test as applied in Freeman
Whether there was evidence that Purcell violated lifting restrictions and thus increased her risk	Purcell: no evidence of exact parts/weights moved, so no proof she exceeded restrictions	Friday Staffing: testimony showed trailer arms ~20–25 lbs and constant twisting/bending at injury time	Court: Commission could credit Purcell’s own testimony about 20–25 lb trailer arms and find she exceeded restrictions; paired with uncontradicted expert testimony, that established increased risk
Whether application of § 97-12.1 here is an unconstitutional ex post facto law	Purcell: statute applied to pre-enactment conduct is unconstitutional	Friday Staffing: statute is civil/administrative, not criminal, so no ex post facto problem	Court: issue not preserved below; even if considered, § 97-12.1 is not criminal and thus not an ex post facto violation

Freeman v. J.L. Rothrock, 189 N.C. App. 31 (N.C. Ct. App.) (discussing Larson test and causal-connection inquiry)
Estate of Freeman v. J.L. Rothrock, 363 N.C. 249 (N.C.) (supreme court reversal of Freeman panel decision)
Chambers v. Transit Mgmt., 360 N.C. 609 (N.C.) (defining causal-connection standards for traumatic injury)
Morrison v. Burlington Indus., 304 N.C. 1 (N.C.) (causation standard for occupational disease: significant contribution)
Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, 292 N.C. 399 (N.C.) (causal-connection analysis in workers’ compensation)
State v. Wiley, 355 N.C. 592 (N.C.) (explaining scope of ex post facto protections)